OS5 hd question

OS5 hd question

Post by Jean-Pierre Radle » Thu, 14 Dec 1995 04:00:00



Quote:Bill Vermillion writes:

> In 'hd' (the program not a drive) quite often I've done hd .
> to see just what was in the directory.

> Every directory I've tried in OS5 gives me 0000   for the
> contents.   Even my SysV.4 system isn't that paranoid about
> letting me see what's there.

No longer possible in OSR 5.  Not with hd, not with od, not with dd, not
with cat, nor more, nor less, nor pg, nor anything else.

--

 
 
 

OS5 hd question

Post by Bill Vermilli » Thu, 14 Dec 1995 04:00:00


In 'hd' (the program not a drive) quite often I've done hd .
to see just what was in the directory.

Every directory I've tried in OS5 gives me 0000   for the
contents.   Even my SysV.4 system isn't that paranoid about
letting me see what's there.

Am I missing something?  Are there new ways to do this (I'm
just how finding my way around in OS5 so I suspect I still have
a lot to learn).

Or (in my paranoid mode) is this something we can't do anymore
because of 'security' restrictions.  It sure made life a lot
easier being able to actually see the entries when there are
problems.

Bill
--


 
 
 

OS5 hd question

Post by Craig Macbri » Sat, 16 Dec 1995 04:00:00



>In 'hd' (the program not a drive) quite often I've done hd .
>to see just what was in the directory.

Don't we all? (Well, obviously not, otherwise SCO would get much more
flak about this.) :-(

Quote:>Every directory I've tried in OS5 gives me 0000   for the
>contents.   Even my SysV.4 system isn't that paranoid about
>letting me see what's there.

No, this is one of the unenhancements SCO has introduced into OS5.

Quote:>Am I missing something?  Are there new ways to do this

You bet. SCO have decided to prevent users from reading directories
directly, supposedly because of the propensity of some software developers
to write crappy code that reads directories directly instead of using
the correct library calls. However, they have also made the kernel do
its own translations for any old code which does this so as to not break
all the old code which needs to still run under OS5.

So, the easy answer is to get copies of hd, od, cat and any similarly
useful utilities off your 3.2.4.2 or Xenix system and put them on your
3.2.5.0 system. (If you're really brutal, put them in /bin.)

They will still happily read "." or any other directory.

--


\_.--.*/        "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
      v                 ... Popular Mechanics, 1949

 
 
 

OS5 hd question

Post by Bill Vermilli » Sat, 16 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>Bill Vermillion writes:

>> In 'hd' (the program not a drive) quite often I've done hd .
>> to see just what was in the directory.
>> Every directory I've tried in OS5 gives me 0000   for the
>> contents.   Even my SysV.4 system isn't that paranoid about
>> letting me see what's there.
>No longer possible in OSR 5.  Not with hd, not with od, not with dd, not
>with cat, nor more, nor less, nor pg, nor anything else.

To quote Elmer Fudd, "How vewwy vewwy wude".  Back to CP/M!

However, in an email message, I was told that the od, cat, ...
(etc) from the old systems will do this nicely.  Just another
couple of files to put on my 'emergency' disk I keep in my
brief case.

Maybe we should think about turning off keyboard echo to so no
one can see what you are typing :-).  

I hadn't seen this mentioned before - but there is so much to
see - but what is the rationale behind this?  Anyone?

--

 
 
 

OS5 hd question

Post by Robert Lip » Sun, 24 Dec 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>In 'hd' (the program not a drive) quite often I've done hd .
>to see just what was in the directory.
>Every directory I've tried in OS5 gives me 0000   for the
>contents.   Even my SysV.4 system isn't that paranoid about
>letting me see what's there.

This was discussed in the programmer group a few months ago, I believe.

The position of a few of us [ I think it included Steve Rago and myself ]
was that programmers have proven themselves unworthy of reading
directories directly.  Rather than have the code break in wierd ways
when it tries to open a directory and sees [ eeek! ] a Rockridge
directory entry, a 32 bit inode directory entry in an HTFS table, or
a DTFS versioning directory entry, it was decided to remove that ability.
We opined that no good could come of the info one would have so gleaned.

A few others [ notably Bela and a few other Admins Par Excellence ]
stated the UNIX Way (tm) was to give the user/administrator as much
rope as possible.  It's up to them to either hang themselves or make
cool wicker baskets.

I don't remember the debate really being won, but it's always fun
to point a couple of opinionated heavyweights at each other and let
them go a few rounds. :-)

--
Robert Lipe

 
 
 

OS5 hd question

Post by Bill Vermilli » Sun, 31 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>>In 'hd' (the program not a drive) quite often I've done hd .
>>to see just what was in the directory.
>>Every directory I've tried in OS5 gives me 0000   for the
>>contents.   Even my SysV.4 system isn't that paranoid about
>>letting me see what's there.
>This was discussed in the programmer group a few months ago, I believe.

Missed that, I guess.

Quote:>The position of a few of us [ I think it included Steve Rago and myself ]
>was that programmers have proven themselves unworthy of reading
>directories directly.  Rather than have the code break in wierd ways
>when it tries to open a directory and sees [ eeek! ] a Rockridge
>directory entry, a 32 bit inode directory entry in an HTFS table, or
>a DTFS versioning directory entry, it was decided to remove that ability.
>We opined that no good could come of the info one would have so gleaned.

Well I've found is SO helpful when something a user does puts
something bogus in the directory.    Apps that stick in
trailing spaces on file names, apps that permit spaces in file
names, users who type something and go to hit back-arrow and
hit the \ key by mistake and wind up with weird control
characters embedded in file names.    It made it easy to find
the problems.

Maybe we should just not let the programmers read the
directories, but give the rest of us permission :-).  Sort of
like a hunting or driving license ?

Quote:>A few others [ notably Bela and a few other Admins Par Excellence ]
>stated the UNIX Way (tm) was to give the user/administrator as much
>rope as possible.  It's up to them to either hang themselves or make
>cool wicker baskets.

Now* yourself in a cool wicker basket could be loads of
fun - as long as the propane lasts to keep the air bag
inflated.

--

 
 
 

1. Can I upgrade from OS5 Host To OS5 Enterprise without losing contents of the HD.

Can anyone  help ?

I have OpenServer 5 Host installed, and I now have Enterprise. I want
to install this to get TCP/IP & NFS.
Can I do an Upgrade install, or do I need to backup my system then
re-install from scratch then restor the files I need.

Phil.

2. iMac DV and LinuxPPC

3. Install woes on OS5 - doesnt find hd controller

4. 4.3bsd-reno lpd/lpr for Solaris2.2

5. Installing OS5.0.4 on second HD

6. problems compiling uudeview code with tcl7.5/tk4.1

7. OS5 IDE mkdev hd

8. LILO/NT-loader ---> OS/2

9. New Install on New HD with an Old HD Copy question

10. UPGRD from SCO OS5.0.0 to OS5.0.2

11. SCO OS5.0.2, update from SCO OS5.0.0

12. question about OS5